[Stuart Wright]

The technical elements of our hardware reviews are not going to be understood by most people. Would you like us to change our reviews?

[eiren]

They are perfect as they are. Technical info is there for those that are interested and want/need to know it. People who arent interested in details can gleam all they need to from the conclusions.

If people want dumbed down reviews they can read What Hi-Fi instead

[j0hn]

what he said if I wanted dumbed down opinions I'd read what hi fi.

I want my reviewers to be trained and certified so they are not just offering an uneducated opinion but a scientifically educated one. any person can become a reviewer, they just need an opinion with a smile and a gift of the gab to get into free parties by sucking upto manufacturers. Proper qualified reviews using technical knowhow is in a different league.

For me the question becomes, why should I listen to someone with no better of an education than myself?

[IAN P]

I like 'em technical, so the answer is no.


You can never have too much info.

[dunk05]

Technical's good for all the reasons above, though I'm not sure I'd agree with the what hi-fi comments, I'd want an unbiased but technically grounded opinion if
the technical detail wasn't there.

Suppose a glossary/faq might be useful on occasion?

[namuk]

No leave as is , there is always a Post button to Ask Questions if Needed to Explane Hardware tech ect, We all need Guidance from time to time ..

you could ask your self How many times have you read a Mag Review then Googled it

[kempez]

Perfect as it is. I enjoy the technical aspects and will always google/forum search the really technical stuff if I don't understand.

Reviews should always be fully backed up with technical test data anyway imo and AVF does it whenever possible so no need to change.

[CH_Peter]

A lot flies right over my head, but I still wouldn't change them, because I can get the stuff that matters, skim past the stuff that I can't grasp. It might be that when I research something, I find that a certain spec is crucial and can come back a read again and I'd much rather see it included and not understand first time than excluded and be frustrated second time.

Plus, the kind of people that hang around this kind of forum, we want our anal retentive full-on no-holds-barred geeky information, please.

[tvbox]

They are fine but what are all those graphs about? Surely you cant tell picture quality by reading a rainbow coloured graph? I have to scroll like 10 times to get past them, and noone even looks at them anyway

Apart from that, There aren't too many technical terms, infact the most techie bit is the ol' spec!!! All the pros and cons are listed clearly and easily, The review is in sections so it's easy to jump to the bit you want. I like the little ticks bit at the end, it's clear enough and the big AVF Recommended or best buy badge at the bottom sums it all up :D
I have already seen on some terms it might help some people by putting a tooltip under a word like HDMI, or the TV's picture 'enhancement name' like THX, XD colour and noise reduction. That is a nice extra for those who need it, and for those who dont, it doesnt clutter up.

I'd like to see SD quality in one paragraph and HD quality in its own so i can jump to it, or you could do like Wikipedia, put a contents box at the top with some links to each section

I would like to see video reviews though, many websites are doing this

Other than that, Keep up the good work!!!
Great stuff without any subscription or bias to any tech or brand (Which?, take note!!! )
Overall, 4*

[Phil Hinton]

Originally Posted by tvbox

They are fine but what are all those graphs about? Surely you cant tell picture quality by reading a rainbow coloured graph? I have to scroll like 10 times to get past them, and noone even looks at them anyway

The graphs tell you exactly what the picture quality is. It is the measured results against the standards used to produce the content you watch. Did you know that these standards say exactly what red, green and blue should look like? and the what the colour of white should be? Plus you can see exactly what the gamma performance is. Actually taking 5-10min to learn what the graphs are saying will give you more information on what the picture quality should be like, than a 4000 word review will...

I would like to see video reviews though, many websites are doing this

Other than that, Keep up the good work!!!
Great stuff without any subscription or bias to any tech or brand (Which?, take note!!! )
Overall, 4*

LOL. AVForums.tv video and click on the reviews tab.

[tvbox]

Originally Posted by Phil Hinton

LOL. AVForums.tv video and click on the reviews tab.

I can't find the panasonic TX-P42X10
Maybe you don't do vreviews for every thing you review?
Anyway, thanks for clearing that other issue up

[JonStatt]

Phil,Stuart, there are a lot of reviews out there that are not really reviews, but just glorified personal opinions. As we all have our own tastes, it is very easy to be misled in this manner. The recent blu-ray blind tests are proof enough that we can convince ourselvesl to hear/see what we want to.

However, proper scientific reviews, are not open to interpretation or psychological influences. They are a true and meaningful measurement of the performance of an electronic item.

That being said, it would be helpful to understand the scoring system. For example, if something is given a reference grade for contrast, what exactly is that score based on?

[Siamese Cat]

[QUOTE=Phil Hinton;10783682]The graphs tell you exactly what the picture quality is. It is the measured results against the standards used to produce the content you watch. Did you know that these standards say exactly what red, green and blue should look like? and the what the colour of white should be? Plus you can see exactly what the gamma performance is. Actually taking 5-10min to learn what the graphs are saying will give you more information on what the picture quality should be like, than a 4000 word review will...



I think your reviews are terrific, better than any magazine but I do have problems with these graphs. Like a few other posters I do not understand them. You say that it only takes 5 - 10 mins reading to learn to understand them which I would/will happily spend. But I don't know where to look. Is there a guide to them somewhere?

[Phil Hinton]

I think your reviews are terrific, better than any magazine but I do have problems with these graphs. Like a few other posters I do not understand them. You say that it only takes 5 - 10 mins reading to learn to understand them which I would/will happily spend. But I don't know where to look. Is there a guide to them somewhere?

We will do that. I will do a quick video that explains everything, will take a few weeks to put together.

[Phil Hinton]

Originally Posted by JonStatt

That being said, it would be helpful to understand the scoring system. For example, if something is given a reference grade for contrast, what exactly is that score based on?

Again, this area and the actual testing lists will be added to a page that explains everything. Hopefully we can expand the help available so people can getup to speed quickly with some of the issues we find and tests we do. Plus we will list our reference points and systems we use. Thanks for the feedback

[kingfats]

Originally Posted by eiren

If people want dumbed down reviews they can read What Hi-Fi instead

Absolutely there's a ton of easy non-technical reading out there so would hate for this forum to follow suit as well.
Reviews are fine as they are.

[Siamese Cat]

Thank you Phil. I shall look forward to seeing these.

[tvbox]

Originally Posted by eiren

If people want dumbed down reviews they can read What Hi-Fi instead

Which is even worse. Their reviews have no backup, and are totally BIASED towards LCD like a magnet. Load of rubbish because Plasma beats LCD in every other way, especially watching SD.
And, you have to pay for Which's and their reviews dont make sense and is just a 5 minute 'hand on' of the tv, not even looking at the details.
LCD shows up too much noise on freeview, and is too bright and not natural tones.

Here is a good website for Plasma VS LCD:
http://www.plasma-lcd-facts.co.uk/


Also for those who don't understand the graphs, just ignore them. You can always see for yourself

[JonStatt]

Originally Posted by tvbox

Which is even worse. Their reviews have no backup, and are totally BIASED towards LCD like a magnet. Load of rubbish because Plasma beats LCD in every other way, especially watching SD.
And, you have to pay for Which's and their reviews dont make sense and is just a 5 minute 'hand on' of the tv, not even looking at the details.
LCD shows up too much noise on freeview, and is too bright and not natural tones.

Here is a good website for Plasma VS LCD:
http://www.plasma-lcd-facts.co.uk/

In some ways I would love to torture Phil by forcing him to write comments such as "looks more 3D" or "sounds more full". But bias can only be introduced when a review becomes entirely subjective and based on a personal opinion.

AVForums would serve no purpose in being just another opinion in the myriad of rubbish reviews out there. The technical analysis is a value add that provides a distinctiveness. I would argue that although they should provide some tutorials on what the graphs mean etc, that even if you don't understand them, you can trust in the conclusions reached because they are not subjective.

Many people on here might be familiar with AVS and some of JoeRods "reviews". They are absolutely subjective reviews based purely on personal opinion. Everytime he completes a review, those that are happy with his findings, say that he has written best review ever. And those that are not happy, boo/hiss and even taunt him. I have no issue with personal opinions..I often post my own here. But a rubber stamped review should not be one.

[David Mackenzie]

Yeah, we'll get a nice explanation of all the charts and graphs up. They have a lot of information which will soon make sense

[Aunty John]

Originally Posted by David Mackenzie

Yeah, we'll get a nice explanation of all the charts and graphs up. They have a lot of information which will soon make sense

That's great news. I love the detail in the reviews, but I must admit that the colour charts do leave me scratching my head! A link to a help / FAQ section would be fab.

[mikim]

I answered to have the technical bit seperate. NOT because I don't like it though... can't get tekki enough in my opinion. I just think that for some visiting the site it might put them off reading what are always very good reviews

Mik

[Monarch]

I think they're great how they are, I've noticed a fairly recent introduction of having a basic explanation of what some things mean, and I think that's the way to go. Deffinitely don't dumb down the reviews, the AVF reviews are the best I can find on the net because they're not dumbed down! But I'm sure that adding a 'layman's terms' explanation after the detailed and technical stuff would be useful for many so that's probably the best way to go if people don't understand what you mean.

Keep up the good work though, as a previous poster mentioned, it's good to see the reviews as a technical testing of the TVs etc...instead of a "trusted" opinion in a magazine (which shouldn't be trusted in a lot of cases!)

[ScreechOwl]

I think the best way is for a 'laymans wiki' and place links from particularly complex items to it then those that need it can have it and thise that don't can pass it by.

Of course like everything else somebody is going to have to do it, but then Wiki's are generally started then publicly enhanced.

[703]

It would be great if there is a live rating scale, so you could compare hardware reviewed between different time frames. If not possible, the is the rating should have some kind of a reference point in time.

E.g. the JVC HD100 reviewed in 08 received Reference score for Contrast. And the 2009 Panny AE4000 received a Good score for Contrast. Does it mean the JVC is better than the AE4000, or does it mean the JVC is only better compared to what was reviewed before the JVC review.

Consistency in the rating would put this site above all others. E.g. Projectorcentral reviewed the JVC HD950 and AE4000, saying that the HD950 doesnt beat the AE4000 in contrast, except in black scenes. While this site puts the HD950 at Reference level for contrast and AE4000 Good for contrast.

[Gadgetboy]

I have to agree with everyone else, and say keep them as they are. I like the reviews here, BECAUSE they are technical. I think the technical stuff should to be kept in with the main bulk of the review though, as it refers to the picture quality, and other aspects being tested etc. If I don't understand something, I tend to find out what it means, so a 'wiki guide' or similar would be very handy. I'm also looking forward to the new video's explaining the graphs! So thanks in advance for those. OT, but was just wondering when the 3rd calibration video will be finished, to explain advanced calibration?

[Cliff]

They are excellent reviews as they are- and can never be too technical. After all, if the reader doesn't want to read the techie bit- scroll down to the conclusion!
Agree with having a link to explain the colour charts- that would be nice and only requires writing once!

Keep up the good work Phil.

[David Mackenzie]

Eh... thanks!

[Monarch]

Originally Posted by David Mackenzie

Eh... thanks!

You keep up the good work too!

[JonStatt]

Originally Posted by 703

It would be great if there is a live rating scale, so you could compare hardware reviewed between different time frames. If not possible, the is the rating should have some kind of a reference point in time.

Live ratings require 1 of 2 things to happen

1) The scores are based on absolute criteria. This way, the scores can move dynamically. For example, if reference for a projector means that contrast ratio must be native 50000:1 or higher today...and then becomes 100000:1 tomorrow, the score can drop appropriately

2) Phil and David have to go back adjusting all their old reviews everytime they do a new one.

Its actually really really hard to do either of these...and because if Phil has announced the HD950 is reference this year...then in 3 years time, all the scores have shifted down, the words that go with the review also now become silly. So the original scores should always stay, and there could be an appended "live" score underneath.

Definitely a nice idea...just not sure its practical.